John Jones and Stephanie Jennings, US Department of Energy ... · Area IV ROM Soil Volume...

Area IV ROM Soil Volume Estimate_draft 090413_to DOE (2) 1

To: John Jones and Stephanie Jennings, US Department of Energy (DOE)

From: David Collins, Mark Sherwin, Dixie Hambrick (MWH)

Cc: Dave Dassler (Boeing)

Date: September 4, 2013

Re: Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates for AOC Soil Cleanup Volumes in Area IV, and Associated Truck Transport Estimates based on DTSC Look-up Table Values - DRAFT

I. Introduction In June 2013, United States Department of Energy (DOE) requested that MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) use available Area IV soil sampling data and the Geographic Information System (GIS) to estimate rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) soil cleanup volumes based on recently issued Lookup Table (LUT) values, and associated soil transport truckloads. This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the evaluation, and presents ROM soil volumes and associated truckloads for three scenarios: Chemical Clearly Contaminated Areas (CCAs), Radiological Cleanup Areas, and Chemical LUT Cleanup Areas. Information presented below for the CCA and Radiological Cleanup Areas is the same as provided to DOE in April 2013, but included here for completeness and to provide contrast with the Chemical LUT estimate.

Prior to describing the applied cleanup criteria and evaluation results, the following describes the approach used to develop estimated soil volumes common to each case.

1. Cleanup footprints were drawn around locations where sampling results displayed in GIS exceeded the cleanup criteria established for each scenario (see below). As described below, all soil volume estimates exclude areas where volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exist alone since these are assumed to be remediated using different treatment technologies.

2. To estimate the average depth of cleanup for each footprint area, filterable analytical result datasets were used to evaluate the depth of exceedances in the cleanup footprints. The range of exceedance depths within each footprint area was used to estimate an average depth of soil above screening levels within each footprint. Average depths were multiplied by respective footprint areas to calculate in situ cleanup volumes. Also, additional GIS data displays have been prepared to aid in this evaluation as described below.

3. In situ soil volumes were converted to ex situ soil volumes using a 30% factor to account for soil volume expansion following excavation. Ex situ soil volumes are used in the summaries provided below.

4. In some cases topographic features, including surface water drainage pathways, lined and unlined channels, ponds, and bedrock extents, were evaluated to estimate cleanup footprints and volumes. In drainages and channels with multiple exceedances, large sections (or in some cases entire sections) of the drainage or the channel feature were used as the cleanup footprint. Sampling data within the banks of the drainage or sides of the channel were used to define lateral extent, and depth of bedrock was used to define vertical extent. If several exceedances occurred in a pond or surface water collection area, the entire footprint of the

Area IV Estimated AOC Soil Cleanup Volumes – DRAFT September 4, 2013


feature was considered for cleanup. Bedrock outcrops were used to define lateral extent of cleanup volumes.

5. The extent of historical operational areas was also considered in estimating cleanup footprints and volumes. In areas with multiple exceedances and significant historical operations and chemical use (i.e., Sodium Reactor Experiment [SRE], Radioactive Materials Handling Facility [RMHF]), the cleanup area included the entire footprint of historical operations and the cleanup depth was assumed to be the deepest exceedance depth (also considering physical constraints such as depth to bedrock).

6. Geophysical anomalies mapped by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were considered in estimation of cleanup footprints and volumes in soil fill areas where fill was extensive and multiple exceedances were observed throughout (i.e., Building 4059 Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power [SNAP], SRE, Sodium Component Test Installation [SCTI], Building 4015 field).

7. Consideration of exclusion criteria as allowed by the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for federally protected species or cultural resources, or a 5% exclusion factor for yet-to-be-determined reasons, have not been applied to reduce the soil volume estimates presented in this TM. The amount of excluded soil based on these AOC allowances may be substantial for the Chemical LUT estimates provided below.

The estimated soil volumes presented in this TM represent ROM engineering estimates based on the information available to MWH in August 2013, and are considered accurate within a tolerance factor of +50/-30%. These estimates should only be used for project planning purposes, and are not meant to represent the final Area IV cleanup requirements.

II. Clearly Contaminated Cleanup Volume Estimates As part of DOE’s Phase 1 co-located sampling program with EPA, criteria were developed to identify CCAs that would require cleanup based on conservative assumptions regarding the range of anticipated values in the pending Chemical LUT. The CCA approach was utilized to limit EPA’s radiological sampling and chemical co-located Phase 1 sampling since the CCAs would require cleanup in any case and further radiological sampling was not warranted.

Working with the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the following criteria were established to identify the CCAs:

1. Chemical concentrations of previously identified risk-driving compounds are generally 10 times (10x) above DTSC-approved Interim Screening Levels (ISLs). Concentrations exceeding two times (2x) ISLs were considered on a case by case basis.

a. Data screening was conducted using ISLs and displayed in GIS using color coded ranges based on multiples of the ISL to represent exceedance levels.

b. Chemical classes considered in this evaluation include: Dioxins (TEQs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (particularly benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P]), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, perchlorate, pesticides, and herbicides.



c. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was only considered if co-located with other chemicals meeting the CCA criteria, and present at concentrations more than 10x the ISLs.

d. VOCs, phthalates, and metals considered essential nutrients (sodium, calcium, iron, etc.) were excluded from this evaluation.

2. The areas contain a high frequency and number of chemicals exceeding ISLs. Again, on a case-by-case basis, single chemical exceedances above 2x ISLs were considered.

3. Chemical contaminant distribution was sufficiently defined for future planning of step-out samples or remedial planning.

4. DOE agreed that the area would most likely require cleanup.

During the Phase 1 co-located sampling program, 50 CCAs were identified within Area IV. During the Phase 3 chemical sampling program, DOE requested that the above criteria be applied to any new sampling data available to identify any additional CCAs present within Area IV. This evaluation resulted in identification of four new CCAs and the combination of two previous CCAs into a single area (SRE Excavation Area).

The 53 CCAs are shown on Figure 1 and listed in Table 1, along with chemical concentration data, average depth of exceedance, and estimated in situ and ex situ soil volume estimates. In summary, the 53 CCAs represent approximately 238,000 cubic yards of soil requiring remedial treatment or disposal. The basis for estimating truckloads for transport offsite for this CCA soil volume are presented below and summarized in Table 4.

III. Radiological Cleanup Volume Estimates In December 2012, EPA published the Final Radiological Soil Characterization Report, including radiological results screened against Field Action Levels (FALs). FALs represent EPA’s radiological background threshold value (BTV) and method detection concentration (MDC) screening levels, and do not include Method Uncertainty as recommended in EPA’s LUT TM. They are based on BTVs and laboratory MDCs achieved during the EPA characterization program, and are in some cases more than the DTSC Provisional LUT value (e.g., Sr-90), and in some cases less than the Provisional LUT value (e.g., Cs-137). Thus, the ROM volume estimates provided in this TM are very preliminary.

Criteria applied to GIS displays of EPA data using FALs include:

1. EPA data for select radionuclides (as displayed on Figure 5.1 of their final report) were displayed in GIS, with individual radionuclides also available for evaluation.

2. The radionuclides included in this evaluation were: Americium-241, Curium-243/244, Cesium-137, Cobalt-60, Europium-152, Europium-154, Nickel-59, Plutonium-238, Plutonium-239/240, Tritium, and Strontium-90. These radionuclides were those identified by EPA as having activities equal to or exceeding the FAL and that resulted from historical operations.

3. Consistent with EPA’s approach, naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) exceedances were excluded from this evaluation.



4. The FAL exceedances displayed in GIS represent the composite of the individual radionuclide comparisons at any one sampling location. The results were not considered using a factored value above FAL value, rather GIS was used to only show ‘exceedance / non-exceedance’ screening results.

As a conservative assumption, all exceedance areas were included in the estimated ROM volumes, even if the result was equal to the FAL. The extent of radiological soil cleanup areas is shown on Figure 2 and listed in Table 2, along with estimated average depth of exceedance, and in situ and ex situ soil volume estimates.

In summary, the radiological soil cleanup areas based on EPA data represent approximately 82,000 cubic yards for treatment or disposal. The basis for estimated truckloads for transport offsite for this radiological soil volume are presented below and summarized in Table 4.

IV. Chemical LUT Cleanup Volumes In June 2013, DTSC issued the Chemical LUT values for 125 chemicals most frequently detected within Area IV, including all background constituents and additional chemicals of interest to DTSC. These values were based on chemical BTVs and method reporting limits (MRLs), with background chemicals adjusted for analytical and decision error uncertainty.

Several of the final LUT values were less than previously estimated LUT values since they were based on the chemical background study BTVs and MRLs, rather than values routinely achievable by multiple laboratories. Also, TPH was included in the Chemical LUT, whereas the preliminary estimate did not include TPH since it was assumed it would be subject to soil treatability findings and would be remediated separately.

DTSC indicated that a second part of the Chemical LUT will be issued during summer 2013, and would reflect required MRLs for the remaining chemicals being investigated at the site. Since the second part of the Look-Up Table has not yet been issued by DTSC, MRLs achievable by several analytical laboratories, similar to or lower than the ISL MRLs, have been used in this evaluation for chemicals not included in the June 2013 Chemical LUT.

LUT Estimates using RFI / Phase 1, 2, and 3 Data

Chemical LUT values issued by DTSC were used to screen previous Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) and recent AOC chemical sampling data and develop estimated cleanup footprints, called ‘Preliminary Remediation Areas’ (PRAs), and associated soil volumes. AOC data available for this evaluation included all Phase 1 and 2 data, and a partial Phase 3 dataset (including Subareas 5B, 5C, 3/6, and 7).

Criteria applied to GIS displays using the Chemical LUT values based on BTV or Multi-Lab MRLs include:

1. A comprehensive “all dot” in GIS was used to represent the maximum ratio of detected analytes at each location to their respective Chemical LUT values, comprehensive of included chemical groups.

2. Chemical groups included in this evaluation were: PAHs, B(a)P TEQ, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (including phthalates), PCBs, Dioxin TEQ, metals, perchlorate, energetics, pesticides, herbicides, terphenyls, and TPH.



a. Select metals considered essential nutrients (iron, calcium, phosphorous, etc.) were not included by DTSC in the Chemical LUT and were not used in this ROM volume estimate.

b. VOCs were excluded from this evaluation because they can be remediated using different technologies and may be related to groundwater contamination. Although excluded, this decision had no substantive impact on the estimated cleanup volumes since the vast majority (if not all) VOC exceedances are co-located with other chemical exceedances.

3. TPH was screened against the LUT values using a ‘light’ (gasoline) and combined ‘heavy’ (kerosene, diesel, and oil) fraction approach consistent to what had been required by DTSC for the RFI. This approach is conservative since in a few cases, the individual TPH results may be less than the LUT value, while the sum is above. This situation occurs rarely in areas impacted by TPH alone.

a. Areas where TPH had not been previously analyzed in samples, but that were surrounded by numerous TPH exceedances were included in PRA footprints even if the primary chemical class results were less than Chemical LUT values.

4. The “all dots” were displayed in GIS to represent a composite of individual chemical comparisons at each sampling location. The results were not considered using any factored value above the Chemical LUT value; rather GIS was used to only show ‘exceedance / non-exceedance’ of screening values.

5. GIS was used to display the depth of a LUT value exceedance at each location along with the depth of analysis at that location. This information was available both for the ‘all dot’ as well as the individual chemical classes. The maximum exceedance and analysis depths were used to help estimate depths for each of the PRA footprints.

6. Sporadic low-level exceedances in the Northern Buffer Zone (NBZ) were considered sufficiently localized to include in unique, small PRAs. These exceedances appear to result from concentrations of naturally occurring compounds or laboratory issues.

7. Volumes of soil that exceed Chemical LUT values and are contiguous and emanating from Area IV and the NBZ were included in this ROM estimate where data currently exist to define extent. Additional sampling is being proposed offsite and in Administrative Area III where necessary to define extent of Chemical LUT exceedances.

Chemical LUT soil cleanup PRAs are shown on Figure 3 and listed in Table 3, along with in situ and ex situ soil volume estimates and estimated average depth of exceedance. Table 3 also indicates where all or part of a radiological cleanup area is co-located with a PRA.

In summary, the Chemical LUT soil cleanup areas based on RFI and available AOC chemical data represent approximately 1,070,220 cubic yards for treatment or disposal (note: includes soil with co-located radiological exceedances). The basis for estimated truckloads for transport offsite for this Chemical LUT soil volume are presented below and summarized in Table 4.

Upper Range Evaluation

DOE also asked that the Chemical LUT soil volume evaluation consider what an upper-range of soil cleanup volumes might be since not all Phase 3 data were available at the time this ROM



estimate was prepared. The upper range evaluation was done considering the impact of recently available Phase 3 chemical data in Subareas 5B, 5C, 3/6, and 7 compared to the remaining portions of Area IV where Phase 3 data are not yet available. This comparison resulted in an approximate 35% increase in soil volumes compared to RFI and existing AOC data. It should be noted that the recent Phase 3 data showed exceedances of Chemical LUT values in almost the entire footprint of the historical operational areas within the subareas that had been sampled.

A separate upper range estimate evaluation was performed to identify the difference in remedial footprints developed using the Chemical LUT, and the extent of soil within Area IV. This estimate was developed by mapping the extent of major bedrock outcrops shown in aerial photos as a layer in GIS, and assuming soil areas outside of the bedrock outcrops and existing PRA footprints would require remediation to a 2 foot depth. For this evaluation, the soil on the hill slope in the southern portion of Area IV was included in the upper range estimate since there are several chemical PRAs to the west and higher on the slope, radiological cleanup areas also exist in this area, and it is proximal to operational areas to the north. In contrast, the soil areas outside of PRAs within the NBZ were not included in the upper range estimate since the chemical PRAs in the NBZ are based on sporadic exceedances with no discernible pattern related to operational areas onsite, and only a few radiological cleanup areas were identified west or north of the Former Sodium Disposal Facility. This approach to developing an upper range estimated reflects 56% more soil that may have exceedances above the Chemical LUT.

Since the extent of soil outside current PRAs reflects a more conservative estimate for potential Area IV and NBZ AOC soil cleanup, it was used to display the Chemical LUT upper range soil cleanup areas and is shown on Figure 4. In summary, the Chemical LUT upper range soil cleanup areas based on this evaluation represent approximately 1,666,000 cubic yards for treatment or disposal (note: includes soil with co-located radiological exceedances). The basis for estimated truckloads for transport offsite for this Chemical LUT upper range soil volume are presented below and summarized in Table 4.

V. Truckload and Transport Estimates For truckload transport planning, an average volume of 16 cubic yards per truckload has been assumed based on previous soil removal actions at SSFL. This basis is consistent with Boeing remediation estimates since some waste will be hauled off in 10- to 15-cubic yard capacity roll-off bins, and some will be hauled off in 16- to 18-cubic yard end-dump trucks. Although a more detailed transport/trucking estimate could be prepared, given the ROM nature of the soil volume estimates a more detailed trucking estimate does not seem warranted at this time. The estimated duration needed for transport of these soil volumes has also been evaluated using a limit of 35 truckloads per day, 5 days per week, and 50 weeks per year. Estimated truckloads for the three soil cleanup scenarios described above are presented in Table 4. VI. Additional Notes / Assumptions

1. Radiological screening using FALs may result in a conservative volume estimate since FALs do not include uncertainty. However, they are also laboratory dependent and



represent higher values for some radionuclides than published in the DTSC Provisional Radiological LUT (a non-conservative assumption).

2. This ROM volume evaluation was limited to data within Area IV, the NBZ, and adjacent areas currently considered potentially contiguous and emanating from LUT exceedances within Area IV and the NBZ. A portion of the NBZ contiguous with NASA property in Area II is not included in this estimate.

3. Characterization for radionuclides and chemicals is not complete.

4. Remediation exclusion criteria as outlined in the AOC have not been applied.

5. Inclusion of soil on the hillslope in the southern portion of Area IV is a conservative assumption for the upper range ROM estimate, while exclusion of soil in the NBZ is a non-conservative assumption. Both are large areas and the extents of cleanup in both (especially in Southern Area IV) are uncertain until additional data from proposed sampling are obtained.

a. As a counter balance to the conservative assumption to include soils on the southern hillslope, a depth of only 2 feet was assumed for the additional area even though soil depth is up to 10 feet thick.

b. DTSC has indicated that ‘lines of evidence’ can be put forward by DOE to identify non-operational Chemical LUT exceedances. This rationale may be applicable in both the southern hillslope area as well as in the NBZ.

6. Chemical PRAs were not extended offsite or into Area III unless previous data already existed above the Chemical LUT values. Additional volume estimates for additional offsite or Area III locations are not included in this TM.

Table 1Summary of Area IV Clearly Contaminated Areas ‐ Draft

Santa Susana Field LaboratoryDate Prepared ‐ September 4, 2013

SVOCs/PAHs TPH Metals Dioxins PCBs PCTs Perchlorate Pesticides/Herbicides Chemical Drivers CommentsArea(ft2)

Ave Depth(ft)

Volume(yd3)

Disposal Volume [+30%](yd3)

Subarea 3

1 HSA 3 Debris Area Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 1700 ppbTPH ‐ Lubricant Oil ‐ 82000 ppm

Ag ‐ 49.9 ppmCd ‐ 3.2ppmCu ‐ 631 ppmHg ‐ 0.24 ppmPb ‐ 552 ppmZn ‐ 732 ppm

Aroclor 1260 ‐ 49000 J ppb Aroclor 1254 ‐ 8090 ppb PAHs, metals, PCBs, dioxins

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 13,262 4 1,960 2,550

Subarea 5A

2 B4641 Dioxin AreaTPH ‐ Diesel ‐ 190 ppmTPH ‐ Lube Oil ‐ 710 ppm

Pb ‐ 2890 ppmNi ‐ 538 ppmHg ‐ 0.377 ppmCd ‐ 18.6 ppmCr ‐ 693 ppmCu ‐ 699 ppmAg ‐ 4.45 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 231.1 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 150 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 120 ppb dioxins, metals, PCBs, TPH

The chemical contamination extent was based on sampling data. 1,637 4 240 310

3 Eastern Hummocky Area

Ba ‐ 176 J ppm Be ‐ 1.3 ppm Cr ‐ 45.8 ppm Cu ‐ 70.7 ppm Pb ‐ 120 ppm Li ‐ 53.9 ppm Ag ‐ 86.4 ppm Th ‐ 2.4 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 82.1 ppt Aroclor 1254 ‐ 220 ug/kg metals, dioxins, PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and extent of hummocky terrain in this portion of Subarea 5A. 23,743 2 1,760 2,290

4 PDU Chrysene ‐ 2700 ppb TPH ‐ G ‐ 6.6 ppm Aroclor 1260 ‐ 120 ppb metals, PAHs, TPH, and PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and extent of operational activities at this site. 24,298 4.5 4,050 5,270

5 PDU Coal Storage Area 1

Fluoranthene ‐ 2900 ppbPyrene ‐ 2500 ppbBenzo(a)Pyrene ‐ 660

pb ‐ 100 ppmNi ‐ 80.4 ppmCu ‐ 63.2 ppmCd ‐ 5.68 ppmAg ‐ 2.18 ppmHg ‐ 0.233 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 36.6 ppt PAHs, dioxins, metals

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area and the edge of the paved storage yard. 273 6 60 80

6 PDU Coal Storage Area 2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 240 ppb Phenanthrene ‐ 230 ppbBenzo(a)Pyrene ‐ 85 ppb TCDD TEQ ‐ 9.1 ppt Aroclor 1260 ‐ 170 ppb PAHs, dioxins, PCBs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area and the edge of the paved storage yard. 442 5 80 100

Subarea 5B

7 Building 4010 Area

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 187 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 112 ppb Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 190 ppb Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 100 ppb Chrysene ‐ 450 ppb Fluoranthene ‐ 457 ppbNaphthalene ‐ 170 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 315 ppb Pyrene ‐ 708 ppb

TPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 71 ppmTPH (Diesel Range C30‐C40) ‐ 240 ppm

Sb ‐ 11.8 ppmCr ‐ 43.5 ppmCu ‐ 126 ppmPb ‐ 549 ppmHg ‐ 0.162 ppmSe ‐ 2.43 ppmAg ‐ 3.04 ppmV ‐ 93.3 ppmZn ‐ 428 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 191.5 ppt

Aroclor 1248 ‐ 34 ppb Aroclor 1254 ‐ 60 ppb 21.3 J ppm

2,4‐DB ‐ 6.5 J ppb (present but not a driver)

PAHs, metals, PCBs, dioxins, perchlorate

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data . 4,441 8 1,320 1,720

8 17th Street Pond and Drainage

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 16000 J ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 31000 J ppb Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 26000 J ppb Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 90000 J ppb Benzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 15000 J ppb Chrysene ‐ 22000 J ppb Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ‐ 1600 ppb Fluoranthene ‐ 32000 J ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 77000 J ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 14000 J ppb Pyrene ‐ 27000 J ppb

TPH (Kerosene Range C15‐C20) ‐ 138 J ppmTPH (Diesel Range C20‐C30) ‐ 260 J ppmTPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 1250 ppmTPH (Diesel Range C30‐C40) ‐ 5.9 ppm

Cd ‐ 2.9 ppm Cr ‐ 85.4 ppm Cu ‐ 60 ppm Hex Cr ‐ 3.4 ppmPb ‐ 97.4 ppm Hg ‐ 23.6 ppmNi ‐ 120 ppm Ag ‐ 420 ppm Zn ‐ 1860 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 292.4 ppt

Aroclor 1248 ‐ 340 ppb Aroclor 1254 ‐ 500 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 5300 ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 110 J ppb

4,4'‐DDE ‐ 350 ppb2,4‐DB ‐ 83.7 ppb

PAHs, metals, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, herbicides

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and the extent of the former drainage ditch along F Street and the existing drainage ditch along 17th Street. 95,596 5 17,700 23,010

9 Building 4011 Leach Field

Anthracene ‐ 320 ppbBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 410 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 360 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 460 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 200 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 220 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 1100 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐CD)pyrene ‐ 200 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 1100 ppbPyrene ‐ 1000 ppb

TPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 31 ppmTPH (Diesel Range C30‐C40) ‐ 87 ppm

Al ‐ 30500 ppmBe ‐ 1.17 ppmCr ‐ 39.4 ppmPb ‐ 66.8 ppmLi ‐ 53.9 ppmMn ‐ 1010 ppmHg ‐ 0.127 ppmTh ‐ 0.491 ppm

TCDD TEQ ‐ 2.68 ppt (present but not a driver)

Aroclor 1260 ‐ 4.2 ppb (present but not a driver) PAHs and metals

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area. 6,456 7 1,670 2,170

Volume Summary3

Area Number Clearly Contaminated Area1

Chemical Summary2

Area IV AOC Cleanup Volumes_draft_090413 1 of 5




Ave Depth(ft)

Volume(yd3)


Volume Summary3


Chemical Summary2

Subarea 5C

10 SPTF Northeast PCB Area Aroclor 1260 ‐ 334 ppb PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area. 1,712 2 130 170

11 Building 4015 Field Fill Area

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 38 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 41 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 76 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 72 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 0.056 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 44 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐CD)pyrene ‐ 69 ppb

TPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 860 ppm

Ba ‐ 321 ppmCd ‐ 1.6 ppmCr ‐ 44.4 ppmCu ‐ 90 ppmHg ‐ 0.21 ppmAg ‐ 13.3 ppmV ‐ 82.6 ppmZn ‐ 333 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 24.3 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 130 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 50 ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 170 ppb 45.4 ppb

PAHs, PCBs, metals, dioxins, perchlorate

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area, the extent of observed fill, and the drainage pathway. 52,357 4 7,760 10,090

12Area West of the Building 4383 Leach Field

Ba ‐ 158 ppmB ‐ 17.9 ppmHg ‐ 0.958 ppmTh ‐ 0.484 J ppmV ‐ 63 J ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 76 ppb metals (Hg), PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area. 595 5 110 140

13 Drainage East of Building 4015 Field

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 130 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 130 J ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 170 ppbChrysene ‐ 180 ppbDibenzo(a,h)anthracene ‐ 45 J ppbFluoranthene ‐ 290 J ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 200 J ppbPyrene ‐ 260 ppb

Cd ‐ 2.39 J ppmCr ‐ 55.4 ppmCu ‐ 352 ppmHg ‐ 0.197 ppmPb ‐ 101 J ppmNi ‐ 37.5 ppmV ‐ 69.8 J ppmZn ‐ 616 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 81.9 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 51 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 75 ppb

4,4'‐DDT ‐ 11 ppb (present but not a driver) PAHs, metals, dioxins, PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area and the drainage pathway. 6,662 3 740 960

14 Ridge East of Building 4015 Field

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 3000 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 1800 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 2700 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 570 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 1100 ppbChrysene ‐ 3400 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 8400 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐CD)pyrene ‐ 620 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 3000 ppbPyrene ‐ 7600 ppb

Al ‐ 31900 ppmBa ‐ 200 ppmCr ‐ 38.3 ppmV ‐ 81.1 ppm (present possible driver dependent on BG)

TCDD TEQ ‐ 2.98 ppt (present but not a driver)

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 1100 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 51 ppb PAHs, PCBs, dioxins


Subarea 5D North

15 PCBs North of Building 4020 Aroclor 1260 ‐ 334 ppb PCBs


48 B4373 AreaDioxins, metals (Hg), PAHs, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area and footprint of leach field 6,370 5 1,180 1,530

49 B4363 Area 1 Dioxins, metals (Hg), TPH


50 B4363 Area 2 Dioxins, metals (Hg), TPH


Subarea 6

16 Mercury Release Area

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 113 ppbBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 86.9 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 155 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 70.8 ppbChrysene ‐ 121 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 65.2 ppb Hg ‐ 35 ppm metals (Hg), PAHs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area. 27,268 5.5 5,550 7,220

17 SRE Northern Drainage Ditch

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 1000 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 2300 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 2900 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 2100 ppbChrysene ‐ 1200 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 3000 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 1800 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 1600 ppbPyrene ‐ 2200 ppb

TPH C15‐C20 ‐ 44 ppmTPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 1300 ppmTPH C30‐C40 ‐ 5100 ppm

Cd ‐ 2.39 ppmCr ‐ 344 ppmCo ‐ 27 ppmCu ‐ 76.1 ppmHex Cr ‐ 4.8 ppmPb ‐ 84.8 ppmHg ‐ 0.48 ppmSe ‐ 0.84 ppmZn ‐ 796 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 201 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 2600 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 78 ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 3300 ppb 4,4'‐DDT ‐ 200 ppb

PCBs, PCTs, PAHs, metals, dioxins, pesticides, TPH

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data, the extent of the former drainage ditch, and bedrock outcrops. 3,740 3 420 550





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume(yd3)


Volume Summary3


Chemical Summary2

19 SRE Hillslope

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 320 ppbBenzo(a)antracene ‐ 360 ppbIdeno(1,2,3‐CD)pyrene ‐ 360 ppbChrysene ‐ 460 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 630 ppbB(a)P ‐ 770 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 1500 ppb TPH (C30‐C40) ‐ 1500 ppm

Cd ‐ 2.05 ppm (2.1x)Hg ‐ 2.5 ppm (28x) TCDD TEQ ‐ 3.73 ppt Aroclor 1254 ‐ 70 ppb

PAHs, dioxins, PCBs, metals, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data. 7,938 3 880 1,140

18 SRE Excavation

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 690 ppbBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 630 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 3100 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 2600 ppbPyrene ‐ 1900 ppb Hg ‐ 7.2 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 28.4 ppt Aroclor 1254 ‐ 980 ppm PAHs, dioxins, PCBs, metals

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and SRE excavation footprint / depth. 93,620 17 58,950 76,640

20 SRE Southern Drainage Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 97 ppbZn ‐ 558 ppmCo ‐ 94.3 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 25.4 ppt Aroclor 1248 ‐ 660 ppm PAHs, metals, PCBs, dioxins

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area and the extent of the drainage ditch. 1,575 3 180 230

21 SRE Pond

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 0.24 ppmBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 0.24 ppmBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 0.54 ppmIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 0.2 ppm

TPH ‐ Lubricant Oil ‐ 240 ppm

Cd ‐ 4.6 ppmCu ‐ 130 ppmPb ‐ 89.6 ppmHg ‐ 1.4 ppmZn ‐ 1460 ppmHex Cr ‐ 2 ppm 2,3,7,8‐TCDD TEQ ‐ 276 ppt

Aroclor 1260 ‐ 180 ppbAroclor 1254 ‐ 110 ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 145 ppb 4,4'‐DDT ‐ 24 ppb

metals, PCBs, PCTs, dioxins, PAHs, pesticides, TPH

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and the limits of the pond. 8,121 6 1,800 2,340

22 SRE Drainage Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 47 ppb

Cu ‐ 36.9 ppmHg ‐ 0.25 ppmZn ‐ 378 ppmCd ‐ 1.5 ppmPb ‐ 49 ppm 2,3,7,8‐TCDD TEQ ‐ 329 ppt Aroclor 1254 ‐ 59.2 ppb metals, PCBs, dioxins, PAHs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data, the presence of debris below the pond dam, and the drainage pathway. 4,886 4 720 940

23 SRE Leach Field

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 15,000 ppbBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 14,000 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 16,000 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 15,000 ppbDibenzo(a,h)anthracene ‐ 3900 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 6400 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 11,000 ppb TPH ‐ Diesel ‐ 340 ppm

Hg ‐ 2.7 ppmAg ‐ 11.4 ppmHex Cr ‐ 0.62 ppmZn ‐ 840 ppmTh ‐ 4 ppmCd ‐ 2 ppmPb ‐ 56 ppm PAHs, Hg, Ag, Cr(VI)

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and the limits of the leach field. 3,931 8 1,160 1,510

24 Building 4003 Southern TransformerAroclor 1260 ‐ 380 ppbAroclor 1254 ‐ 430 ppb PCBs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 658 2 50 70

25 Building 4003 Eastern Transformer Aroclor 1260 ‐ 7800 ppb PCBsThe chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 909 2 70 90

26 Building 4003 Oil Stain TPH ‐ Diesel ‐ 470 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 121 ppb PCBs, TPH

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and visual limits of the stained soil. 232 2 20 30

27 Northern Storage PCB Area 1

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 190 ppb

OCBS1081 outside the CCA area is: 2‐Methylnaphthalene ‐ 12,000ppb1‐Methyl naphthalene ‐ 7,000 ppb

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 88.8 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 15.7 ppbAroclor 1248 ‐ 120 ppb PCBs, PAHs

The chemical contamination area is located northeast of the former storage area and drains northeasterly, and was based on sampling data and observed debris locations. 1,954 2 140 180

28 Northern Storage PCB Area 2TPH (Gasoline Range) ‐ 3 ppm

Aroclor 1248 ‐ 24,000 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 5400 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 630,000 ppb PCBs

The chemical contamination area is located northwest of the former storage area and drains northwesterly, and was based on 3,950 2 290 380

29 Atomics International (AI) Yard

TPH ‐ Diesel ‐ 8300 ppmTPH (Lubricant Range) ‐ 8300 ppm Hg ‐ 0.16 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 2200 ppb PCBs, TPH, metals (Hg)

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and visual limits of the former storage pad. 10,580 4 1,570 2,040





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume(yd3)


Volume Summary3


Chemical Summary2

30 Northern Bench Area

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 38.2 J ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 219 J ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 42.6 J ppbChrysene ‐ 210 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 127 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 46.3 J ppbPyrene ‐ 114 ppb

TPH C12‐C14 ‐ 36 ppmTPH (Kerosene Range C15‐C20) ‐ 350 ppmTPH (Diesel Range C21‐C30) ‐ 600 ppmTPH C30‐C40 ‐ 690 ppm

Cd ‐ 3.54 J ppmCr ‐ 131 J ppmCu ‐ 96.3 JPb ‐ 380 ppmHg ‐ 0.863 J ppmNi ‐ 81.4 J ppmZn ‐ 471 J ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 53.4 ppt

Aroclor 1248 ‐ 260 ppbAroclor 1254 ‐ 9100 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 4100 J ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 1300 ppb 99.6 ppb

PAHs, PCBs, TPH, metals (Pb), perchlorate

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and observed debris/soil fill material. 14,510 4 2,150 2,800

31 Central TransformerAroclor 1248 ‐ 1900 ppbAroclor 1254 ‐ 660 ppb PCBs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 1,556 5 290 380

32 Southeast TransformerAroclor 1254 ‐ 240 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 110 ppb PCBs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 652 3 70 90

33 Telephone Pole Storage Area Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 29 ppm 2,3,7,8‐TCDD TEQ ‐ 184 ppt dioxins

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and the observed pole storage area. 1,442 3 160 210

34 Eastern Debris AreaBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 34 ppbChrysene ‐ 22 ppb

Sb ‐ 17.5 ppmCd ‐ 3 ppmCr ‐ 44 ppmPb ‐ 143 ppmAg ‐ 10.8 ppmZn ‐ 729 ppmCu ‐ 60.4 ppm 2,3,7,8‐TCDD TEQ ‐ 52 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 94 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 20 ppb dioxins, metals, PCBs, PAHs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data, observed debris locations, and bedrock outcrops. 18,369 5 3,400 4,420

35 Old Con/New Con Drainage

Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 340 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 280 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐460 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 380 ppbChrysene ‐ 500 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐ 100 ppb

TPH (C20‐C30) ‐ 920 J ppmTPH (C30‐C40) ‐ 130 ppm

Hex Cr ‐ 2.9 ppmPb ‐ 68 ppmHg ‐ 23 ppmPb ‐ 41 ppmCd ‐ 2.2 ppmAg ‐ 3.3 ppmZn ‐ 160 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 650 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 560 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 216 ppbAroclor 1248 ‐ 180 ppb

PCBs, dioxins, metals, PAHs, TPH

The chemical contamination area extends from the southern portion of the Old Con site to the south below the New Con site, and was based on sampling data and the drainage pathway. 27,050 3 3,010 3,910

36 Building 4040 Ash Pile Area

Ba ‐ 1000 ppmPb ‐ 77 ppmAg ‐ 150 ppmZn ‐ 3400 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 66 ppt dioxins, metals

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the area and visual observation of the ash pile. 8,981 2 670 870

37 New Con Yard South

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 28.3 J ppbBenzo(a)anthracene ‐ 20.8 ppbChrysene ‐ 23.8 ppb

Cd ‐ 20 ppmCu ‐ 200 ppmPb ‐ 100 ppmNi ‐ 130 ppmAg ‐ 5 ppmZn ‐ 1100 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 3560 ppb PCBs, metals

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data in the southern portion of the yard. 2,901 2 160 210

51 South of SCE Substation Road

Phenanthrene ‐ 54.2 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 117 ppbPyrene ‐ 76.4 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 55.9 ppbChrysene ‐ 74.7 ppb TPH (C21‐C30) ‐ 122 ppm

Ag ‐ 6000 ppmCd ‐ 1300 ppmNi ‐ 29000 ppmCu ‐ 2500 ppmMb ‐ 78 ppm

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 275 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 212 ppb Aroclor 5460 ‐ 343 J ppb

PAHs, PCBs, PCTs, metals, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and storage observed in aerial photos. 10,352 5 1,920 2,500

Subarea 7

38 RMHF Southern Fenceline

Fluoranthene ‐ 5100 ppbPyrene ‐ 4300 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 1700 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 1200 ppb TPH‐ Lube Oil ‐ 170 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 43.9 ppt

Arclor 1242 ‐ 392 ppb Arclor 1254 ‐ 231 ppb Arclor 1260 ‐ 6710 ppb PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, TPH

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data, bedrock outcrops, and asphalt pavement at RMHF. 4,595 2 340 440

39RMHF Northern Fenceline and Catch Basin

Fluoranthene ‐ 29000 ppbPyrene ‐ 23000 ppbBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 8800 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 4600 ppb TPH‐ Lube Oil ‐ 1200 ppm

Cd ‐ 5.01 ppmPb ‐ 115 ppmCo ‐ 48 ppmAs ‐ 24.6 ppmBe ‐ 1.6 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 81.4 ppt PAHs, dioxins, TPH, metals

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data and asphalt pavement at RMHF. 34,441 5 6,380 8,290

40 Area West of B4133Hg ‐ 0.984 ppmCr ‐ 184 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 50.4 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 970 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 72 ppbAroclor 5460 ‐ 910 ppb dioxins, metals, PCBs

The chemical contamination area extent was based on sampling data. 1,076 3 120 160

52 Slope North of SNAP Operations

Phenanthrene ‐ 470 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 190 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 140 ppbPyrene ‐ 110 ppbBenzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 110 ppbChrysene ‐ 110 ppb

TPH (C21‐C30) ‐ 1200 ppmTPH (C30‐C40) ‐ 3700 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 28.0 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 66 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 37 ppb PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data. 32,256 3 3,580 4,650





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume(yd3)


Volume Summary3


Chemical Summary2

Subarea 8 North

41 FSDF Southeast Hg ‐ 0.25 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 360 ppb 3.6 ppmPerchlorate, PCBs, PAHs, metals (Hg)

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data in the area. 5,972 5 1,870 2,430

42 FSDF WestBenzo(a)pyrene ‐ 6.3 ppbnot a driver but present Hg ‐ 6.1 ppm Aroclor 1254 ‐ 19 ppb Hg, PCBs

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and bedrock outcrops that define the extent of the surface water drainage. 9,466 2 330 430

43 FSDF Pistol RangePb ‐ 420 ppmHg ‐ 0.35 ppm Pb, Hg

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and the visual extent of lead shot. 1,793 3 720 940

44 ESADA Pistol Range

Pb ‐ 27,000 ppmSb ‐ 870 ppm As ‐ 350 ppm Pb, Sn, As

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data, the visual extent of lead shot, and the extent of the hillside that was used for target practice. 4,668 4 780 1,010

45 Building 56 Pit East Ramp TPH ‐ 107 ppmAroclor 1248 ‐ 246 ppbAroclor 1254 ‐ 134 ppb PCBs, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and the extent of debris identified in the area. 2,511 2 90 120

46 Building 56 Landfill

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 960 ppb (split sample value)Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 750 ppbChrysene ‐ 2800 ppb

TPH ‐ 23,000 ppm (lubricant oil)

Cu ‐ 130 ppmPb ‐ 94 ppmHg ‐ 1.7 ppmHex Cr ‐ 0.3 ppm

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 1000 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 200 ppb PCBs, PAHs, metals, TPH

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and the extent of landfill materials identified using field investigation techniques and review of historical aerial photographs. 81,263 2 to 20 37,940 49,320

47 Building 4100 Northern Slope

Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 130 ppbBenzo(b)fluoranthene ‐ 170 ppbBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 93 ppbFluoranthene ‐ 100 ppbIndeno(1,2,3‐CD)pyrene ‐ 53 ppbPhenanthrene ‐ 65 ppbPyrene ‐ 150 ppb

Cd ‐ 7.19 ppmCr ‐ 54 ppmHex Cr ‐ 4 ppmPb ‐ 270 ppmHg ‐ 0.237 ppmNi ‐ 50.6 ppmSe ‐ 0.727 ppmZn ‐ 1250 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 229.3 ppt

Aroclor 1254 ‐ 68 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 70 ppb PAHs, PCBs, Dioxins, Metals

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data 580 3 60 80

53 FSDF Drainage TPH (C30‐C40) ‐ 35 ppm Hg ‐ 0.2 ppm TCDD TEQ ‐ 1.84 pptAroclor 1254 ‐ 390 ppbAroclor 1260 ‐ 330 ppb perchlorate ‐ 6.2J PCBs, dioxins, metals

The chemical contamination area was based on sampling data and drainage pathway. 20,926 10 7,750 10,080

TOTAL 183,050 238,010Notes

1. Criteria used to identify Clearly Contaminated Areas include: i. Chemical concentrations of previously identified risk‐driving compounds are generally 10 times above DTSC‐approved Interim Screening Levels (ISLs). Concentrations that exceeded two times ISLs were considered on a case by case basis. Chemical classes considered in the evaluation include dioxin TEQs, PAHs, PCBs, metals, perchlorate, pesticides, and herbicides. TPH was only considered if co‐located with other chemicals meeting the CCA criteria, and present at concentrations above 10 times the ISLs. VOCs, phthalates, and metals considered essential nutrients (sodium, calcium, iron, etc.) were excluded from the evaluation. ii. The areas contain a high frequency and number of chemicals exceeding ISLs. Areas with single chemical exceedances above 2x ISLs were considered. iii. Chemical contaminant distribution was sufficiently defined for future planning of step‐out samples or remedial planning. iv. DOE agreed that the area would most likely require cleanup.

2. Max detections noted for areas; not all detections included for each chemical class.

3. Depth and volume estimates are considered preliminary, working draft values that will need refinement during remedial planning.

4. The table contains four new CCAs that have not been published to DTSC or presented to the public as of February 28, 2013 (most recent public meeting).


Table 2Summary of Area IV Radiological Soil Volumes ‐ Draft


Radiological Area1Area(ft2)

Ave Depth(ft)

Volume2

(yd3)Disposal Volume [+30%]

(yd3)Subarea 3

South of SCE Substation 818 5 150 200Subarea 5A

Eastern Hummocky Area 1,028 2 80 100

Area West of PDU 867 4.5 140 180

B4023 Area 1 344 2 30 40

B4023 Area 2 3,042 2 230 300

B4073 Area 538 2 40 50

B4093 Area 1 423 5 80 100

B4093 Area 2 682 4 100 130Subarea 5B

Building 4010 Area 5,370 2 400 520

Area Southeast of B4010 790 2 60 80

17th Street Pond and Drainage 26,484 5 4,900 6,370

Building 4011 Area 6,720 5 1,240 1,610

South of B4006 1,025 2 80 100

B4026 Area 4,990 2 370 480

Area North of B4356 4,110 2 300 390

Area North of B4019 3,750 5 690 900Subarea 5CSouthern Portion of Building 4015 Field Fill Area 662 2 50 70

South of B4100 574 5 110 140

B100 Trench 2,915 2 220 290Subarea 5D

Building 4020 Area 29,022 5 5,370 6,980

Parking Lot East of B4009 820 2 60 80

Area North of B4055 1,168 5 220 290

Area Southeast of B4055 1,090 2 80 100

B4373 Area 820 2 60 80

B4363 Area 1 1,260 5 230 300

Field East of B4363 340 2 30 40





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume2


(yd3)

South of B4353 Area 1 272 5 50 70

South of B4353 Area 2 454 2 30 40

South of B4353 Area 3 631 2 50 70Base of Hillslope South of B4363 ‐ Area 1 267 2 20 30Base of Hillslope South of B4363 ‐ Area 2 312 5 60 80

Southern Portion of Pond Dredge 253 5 50 70

North of Area IV Borrow Pit 4,334 5 800 1,040South of Area IV Borrow Pit ‐ Area 1 1,492 2 110 140South of Area IV Borrow Pit ‐ Area 2 336 2 20 30South of Area IV Borrow Pit ‐ Area 3 2,220 2 160 210South of Area IV Borrow Pit ‐ Area 4 507 2 40 50South of Area IV Borrow Pit ‐ Area 5 816 2 60 80Subarea 6

Mercury Release Area 607 2 40 50

SRE Hillslope 15,066 3 1,670 2,170

West of SRE Hillslope 3,863 3 430 560West of Temporary Hot Waste Storage Area 6,690 2 500 650

SRE Southern Drainage 276 3 30 40

SRE Pond 9,066 6 2,010 2,610

South of SRE Pond 1,031 2 80 100

SRE Drainage 1,745 2 130 170

Drainage in NBZ leading from SRE 1,407 2 100 130

East of SRE Leach Field 1,038 2 80 100

SRE Cooling Tower 1,285 2 100 130

Sodium Cleaning Pad 6,540 2 480 620

South of Building 4003 630 2 50 70

Walkway Southwest of B4003 473 2 40 50

Northern Bench Area 552 1 20 30

Area South of SCE Substation Road 1,477 1 50 70





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume2


(yd3)

Old Con / New Con Drainage 33,614 2 2,490 3,240

Area SW of Building 4040 Ash Pile 4,495 1 170 220

B4040 South Area 1 14,201 2 790 1,030

B4040 South Area 2 354 2 20 30

East of B4064 Leach Field 638 2 40 50

Field West of B4064 2,318 2 130 170Subarea 7RMHF Operational Area, Fenceline, Northern Slope, and Catch Basin 164,265 5 30,420 39,550

East of B4021 Leach Field 470 1 20 30

RMHF Drainage 1 100 1 4 10



Area North of B1433 2,990 2 220 290

Hillslope West of B1433 ‐ Area 1 7,487 2 550 720

Hillslope West of B1433 ‐ Area 2 1,722 3 190 250

ISF and Downslope Area 17,422 3 1,940 2,520Southwest of RMHF Catch Basin Area 1 500 2 40 50Southwest of RMHF Catch Basin Area 2 322 4 50 70Southwest of RMHF Catch Basin Area 3 1,100 3 120 160Subarea 8

B4056 Landfill 1 294 5 50 70

B4056 Landfill 2 300 5 60 80

FSDF Ponds 172 5 30 40

FSDF Western Storage Yard 960 5 180 230

Road to RD‐22 110 2 10 10

FSDF Drainage 875 3 100 130

West of FSDF 908 2 70 90

North of FSDF 90 2 10 10

West of B4814 212 2 20 30





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume2


(yd3)

ESADA Storage Yard 150 5 30 40

North of ESADA Storage Yard 136 5 30 40Drainage North of B4009 Leach Field 3,192 2 240 310

Area East of B4009 410 2 30 40

Area Northeast of B4009 288 5 50 70

B4009 Leach Field 187 2 10 10Area West of Solar Concentrator Facility 455 2 30 40Area Northeast of Solar Concentrator Facility 256 2 20 30Area Southwest of Solar Concentrator Facility 193 2 10 10

Area Northeast of ESADA 748 2 60 80

ESADA Pistol Range ‐ Area 1 1,316 2 100 130

ESADA Pistol Range ‐ Area 2 130 5 20 30

ESADA Hillslope ‐ Area 1 2,159 2 160 210



ESADA Hillslope ‐ Area 4 290 5 50 70


Building 4100 Northern Slope 225 3 30 40

Drainage West of B4100 160 5 30 40NBZ

Area North of OCY 1,615 3 180 230

SRE Drainage in NBZ 1,407 3 160 210

Drainage Northwest of RMHF 854 2 60 80

NBZ 1 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 2 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 3 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 4 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 5 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 6 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 7 1,256 2 90 120





Ave Depth(ft)

Volume2


(yd3)

NBZ 8 1,256 2 90 120

NBZ 9 1,256 2 90 120

TOTAL 63,164 82,230

Total Cleanup Areas 106Notes

1. Radiological areas were identified where radionuclide results exceeded EPA Field Action Levels (FALs) based on the following: i. FALs represent EPAs Background Threshold Value (BTV) and Method Detection Concentrations (MDC) screening levels and do not include Method Uncertainty. ii. Radionuclides used in this evaluation were those identified by EPA as having activities equal to or exceeding the FAL and that resulted from historical operations, and included: Americium‐241, Curium‐243/244, Cesium‐137, Cobalt‐60, Europium‐152, Europium‐154, Nickel‐59, Plutonium‐238, Plutonium‐239/240, Tritium, and Strontium‐90. iii. NORM radionuclide exceedances were excluded from this evaluation.

2. Depth and volume estimates summarized in this table are based on BTVs and laboratory MDCs achieved during the EPA characterization program, and are in some cases more than the DTSC Provisional LUT value (e.g., Sr‐90), and in some cases less than the Provisional LUT value (e.g., Cs‐137). Thus, the ROM volume estimates provided in this TM are very preliminary and will need refinement during remedial planning.


Table 3Summary of Area IV Chemical Preliminary Remediation Area Soil Volumes ‐ Draft


Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)


PU‐01 17th St Drainage 61,227 3.0 6,803 8,844

PU‐02 17th St Pond 220,875 4.0 32,722 42,539

U5‐19 5D South 70,153 2.5 6,496 8,444

U5‐31 5D South 1 41,803 2.0 3,096 4,025

U5‐29 5D South 10 24,206 5.0 4,483 5,827

U5‐23 5D South 12 1,954 10.0 724 941

U5‐32 5D South 13 1,954 3.0 217 282

U5‐28 5D South 3 1,954 1.0 72 94

U5‐30 5D South 4 9,877 1.0 366 476

SR‐11 B4003 Area 24,415 2.0 1,809 2,351

SR‐12 B4003 Path 4,492 1.0 166 216

SR‐10 B4003 Xformer 18,503 1.5 1,028 1,336

PU‐11 B4005 East 35,385 5.0 6,553 8,519

HS‐18 B4005 LF 1 4,571 8.0 1,354 1,761

PU‐07 B4005 NW 7,804 2.5 723 939

HS‐09 B4006 South 1 15,647 7.0 4,057 5,274

HS‐17 B4006 South 2 83 6.0 18 24

L2‐05 B4007/B4008 Area 1 22,462 2.0 1,664 2,163

L2‐8 B4007/B4008 Area 2 3,695 2.0 274 356

L9‐03 B4009 LF 5,351 8.0 1,586 2,061

L9‐18 B4009 xfm 1,954 2.0 145 188

L1‐01 B4010 Southeast 4,055 2.0 300 390

L2‐07 B4011 Area 27,976 1.0 1,036 1,347

L2‐06 B4011 LF 45,165 5.0 8,364 10,873

SA‐05 B4013 North 183 5.0 34 44

SA‐06 B4013 South 124 5.0 23 30

SA‐04 B4013/B4010 Area 62,236 8.0 18,440 23,972

U5‐02 B4015 Drainage 12,751 2.0 944 1,228

U5‐01 B4015 Field 93,067 8.0 27,575 35,848

U5‐05 B4015 Ridge 25,669 2.5 2,377 3,090

U5‐04 B4015 West 850 1.0 31 41

SA‐01 B4019 North 5,787 1.5 322 418

SA‐02 B4019 South 10,215 6.0 2,270 2,951

HL‐01 B4020 Area 76,347 10.0 28,277 36,760

U5‐12 B4023 Area 16,576 1.0 614 798

HS‐27 B4024 East 10,502 10.0 3,890 5,057

PU‐08 B4024 SE 1,954 5.0 362 470

HS‐28 B4024 West 1,648 10.0 611 794

L1‐03 B4025 East 6,410 2.5 594 772

L1‐02 B4025 West 1 584 5.0 108 141

PU‐14 B4027 18,883 2.0 1,399 1,818

U5‐09 B4027 West 3 1,438 2.0 107 138

RM‐05 B4028 23,891 10.0 8,849 11,503

SF‐04 B4029 East 1,954 2.0 145 188

SF‐01 B4029 Hillslope 22,082 4.0 3,271 4,253

Chemical Volume Summary2

Area IDChemical LUT Preliminary

Remediation Area1

1 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

SF‐03 B4029 NW 765 2.0 57 74

SE‐02 B4029 South 1 1,954 1.0 72 94

SE‐03 B4029 South 2 1,909 1.0 71 92

SF‐02 B4029 West 1 1,220 2.5 113 147

L3‐01 B4030 9,049 3.0 1,005 1,307

PU‐13 B4032 5,831 2.5 540 702

SR‐15 B4033 1 19,648 3.0 2,183 2,838

SR‐18 B4033 2 7,144 3.0 794 1,032

PU‐12 B4036/B4037 894 6.0 199 258

L4‐03 B4040 Ash Pile Area 130,411 1.5 7,245 9,419

PU‐15 B4041 South 3,423 1.0 127 165

PU‐17 B4042 1,954 5.0 362 470

U5‐18 B4055 Area 120,432 7.0 31,223 40,590

BL‐03 B4056 Landfill 100,447 10.0 37,203 48,363

BL‐04 B4056 Landfill 10,342 2.0 766 996

BL‐02 B4056 Pit 1,706 1.0 63 82

BL‐01 B4056 Pit E Ramp 2,598 1.0 96 125

SA‐12 B4057 Area 20,834 10.0 7,716 10,031

L4‐01 B4064 Area 41,599 1.0 1,541 2,003

L4‐02 B4064 Channel 12,669 2.0 938 1,220

MC‐01 B4065 MC Area 102,082 5.0 18,904 24,575

L9‐14 B4073 32,637 5.0 6,044 7,857

L9‐15 B4093 808 8.5 254 331

BH‐04 B4100 9,644 8.0 2,857 3,715

BH‐02 B4100 Field 32,828 5.0 6,079 7,903

BH‐03 B4100 Field N 1,631 5.0 302 393

HL‐02 B4100 Parking 23,824 7.5 6,618 8,603

BH‐01 B4100 Trench 62,259 3.0 6,918 8,993

HF‐07 B4133 Hill 1 24,199 1.0 896 1,165

HF‐12 B4133 Hill 3 8,815 4.0 1,306 1,698

HF‐09 B4133 Hill 4 1,318 1.0 49 63

HS‐11 B4334 Area 24,977 3.0 2,775 3,608

L5‐03 B4353 Area 22,097 3.0 2,455 3,192

HS‐01 B4356 Area 14,477 15.0 8,043 10,456

HS‐15 B4358 152 2.0 11 15

L6‐01 B4363 Area 53,038 4.0 7,857 10,215

L8‐01 B4383 Area 118,962 5.0 22,030 28,639

L2‐03 B4403 1,848 2.0 137 178

U5‐07 B4453 1,901 1.0 70 92

U5‐13 B4453 South 1,954 1.0 72 94

SA‐11 B4626 Area 26,280 3.0 2,920 3,796

U5‐08 B4641 16,299 5.0 3,018 3,924

U5‐15 B4641 South 881 2.0 65 85

U5‐14 B4641 SW 1,954 1.0 72 94

OC‐01 B4783 Xformer 419 1.0 16 20

2 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

HS‐13 B4826 1,967 9.0 656 852

RM‐02 Catch Basin 82,338 1.0 3,050 3,964

PU‐10 Coal Storage 8,075 2.0 598 778

RM‐07 Culvert 1,220 1.5 68 88

HL‐04 Ditch S of G St 22,477 3.5 2,914 3,788

U5‐27 Ditch S of L St 9,117 2.0 675 878

HF‐11 Downslope of ISF 13,378 1.0 495 644

FS‐15 Drainage E of FSDF 15,571 2.0 1,153 1,499

L5‐02 Drainage N of B4353 7,409 5.0 1,372 1,784

FS‐10 Drainage N of FSDF 13,235 2.0 980 1,274

FS‐11 Drainage of FSDF 12,233 2.0 906 1,178

BZ‐14 Drainage N of OCY 1 33,494 2.0 2,481 3,225

RM‐14 Drainage N of SNAP2 1,954 1.0 72 94

SE‐01 Drainage S of B4029 20,220 2.0 1,498 1,947

PU‐05 E of B4005 LF 1 42,121 2.0 3,120 4,056

HS‐20 E of B4009 LF 2 667 10.0 247 321

FS‐08 E of FSDF 7,045 1.5 391 509

OC‐06 E of Tank 4731 6,814 1.0 252 328

PU‐06 East of B4042 17,888 2.0 1,325 1,723

MC‐03 East of B4056 LF 1,954 1.0 72 94

HF‐03 East of B4133 8,302 2.0 615 799

HS‐21 East of B4616 12 1.5 1 1

HS‐07 East of HMSA 2 3,045 4.0 451 586

OC‐14 Edison Sub 4,458 2.0 330 429

ES‐01 ESADA Pistol Range 13,860 3.0 1,540 2,002

ES‐7 ESADA South 15,350 1.5 853 1,109

ES‐02 ESADA Storage Yard 20,548 1.5 1,142 1,484

FS‐01 FSDF Clean Pad 36,419 8.0 10,791 14,028

FSDF_C FSDF Drainage C (NBZ) 9,090 2.0 673 875

FSDF_D1 FSDF Drainage D1 (NBZ) 7,249 2.0 537 698



FSDF_D4 FSDF Drainage D4 (Offsite) 28,268 2.0 2,094 2,722

FSDF_East_DownFSDF Drainage East (NBZ) 5,812 2.0 431 560

FSDF_NE FSDF Drainage NE 6,343 2.0 470 611

FSDF_SE FSDF Drainage SE 1,749 2.0 130 168

FS‐12 FSDF Range 1,774 2.0 131 171

FS‐14 FSDF Range 27 4.0 4 5

FS‐06 FSDF Upper Pond 1,679 7.5 467 606

HS‐04 HMSA Area 10,892 10.0 4,034 5,244

SE‐07 Hummock Area N 1 11,158 2.0 827 1,074

SE‐08 Hummock Area N 2 1,027 1.0 38 49

SE‐04 Hummocky Area 36,945 2.0 2,737 3,558

HF‐10 ISF 3,005 5.0 556 723

U5‐24 J St Drainage 12,293 2.0 911 1,184

3 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

HS‐10 Kalina North 5,148 1.0 191 248

L9‐02 N of B4009 LF 2,119 5.0 392 510

U5‐03 N of B4015 Field 54,568 5.0 10,105 13,137

L9‐16 N of B4093 466 3.5 60 79

OC‐15 N of Edison 813 1.0 30 39

RM‐11 N of SNAP Drain1 12,707 2.0 941 1,224

RM‐10 N of SNAP Ops 1 72,133 4.0 10,686 13,892

RM‐13 N of SNAP Ops 2 481 1.0 18 23

L9‐10 N of Solar Panel 2,982 2.0 221 287

SR‐09 Sodium Cleaning Pad 22,905 2.0 1,697 2,206

BZ‐01 NBZ 1 1,954 2.0 145 188

BZ‐10 NBZ 10 1,828 2.0 135 176

BZ‐11 NBZ 11 2,059 2.0 153 198

BZ‐12 NBZ 12 1,954 2.0 145 188

BZ‐17 NBZ 13 1,954 2.0 145 188

BZ‐18 NBZ 14 15,019 1.0 556 723

BZ‐19 NBZ 15 2,813 2.0 208 271

BZ‐20 NBZ 16 20,694 0.5 383 498

BZ‐21 NBZ 17 2,813 2.0 208 271

BZ‐02 NBZ 2 8,161 2.0 605 786

BZ‐24 NBZ 20 1,954 2.0 145 188

BZ‐25 NBZ 25 4,676 0.5 87 113

BZ‐26 NBZ 26 5,364 0.5 99 129

BZ‐27 NBZ 27 4,456 0.5 83 107

BZ‐28 NBZ 28 36,331 2.0 2,691 3,498

BZ‐03 NBZ 3 1,790 2.0 133 172

BZ‐04 NBZ 4 1,954 2.0 145 188

BZ‐05 NBZ 5 1,910 2.0 142 184

BZ‐06 NBZ 6 1,512 2.0 112 146

BZ‐07 NBZ 7 8,066 0.5 149 194

BZ‐08 NBZ 8 3,631 2.0 269 350

BZ‐09 NBZ 9 2,813 2.0 208 271

NC‐03 NC Drainage S 19,017 2.0 1,409 1,831

U6‐01 NCY Dirt Rd 1 114,217 2.0 8,461 10,999

U6‐02 NCY Dirt Rd 2 24,145 2.0 1,789 2,325

EL‐01 NE of B3271 1,009 2.0 75 97

FS‐09 NE of FSDF 5,356 4.0 793 1,032

FS‐13 NE of FSDF 1,723 2.5 160 207

FS‐16 NE of FSDF 1,954 2.0 145 188

NEBZ‐06 NEBZ 3 1,954 2.0 145 188

NEBZ‐07 NEBZ 4 1,954 2.0 145 188

NEBZ‐08 NEBZ 5 1,626 2.0 120 157

NEBZ‐09 NEBZ 6 1,954 2.0 145 188

NEBZ‐10 NEBZ 7 1,954 2.0 145 188

NEBZ‐11 NEBZ 8 1,942 2.0 144 187

4 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

NEBZ‐12 NEBZ 9 818 2.0 61 79

NC‐2 New Con Drainage (Area III) 5,946 2.0 440 573

NC‐04 New Con Yard 53,609 3.0 5,957 7,744

EL‐03 North of B3271 2 77 1.0 3 4

L9‐04 North of B4009 728 2.0 54 70

BH‐05 North of B4100 5,570 4.0 825 1,073

HF‐02 North of B4133 6,367 3.0 707 920

L5‐01 North of B4353 1,954 3.5 253 329

SR‐16 North of SRE 34,828 1.0 1,290 1,677

U5‐06 NW of B4011 37,472 4.0 5,551 7,217

HS‐24 NW of B4356 313 2.0 23 30

ES‐03 NW of ESADA SY 1,954 8.0 579 752

ES‐04 NW of ESADA SY 1,954 5.0 362 470

PD‐03 NW of PD Area 1,954 2.5 181 235

L9‐13 NW of Solar F 9,111 2.0 675 877

OC‐16 OCY 16 8,614 3.0 957 1,244

OC‐17 OCY 17 7,997 3.0 889 1,155

OC‐18 OCY 18 7,146 3.0 794 1,032

OC‐19 OCY 19 30,047 1.5 1,669 2,170

OC‐20 OCY 20 1,764 1.0 65 85

OC‐21 OCY 21 3,503 1.0 130 169

OC‐04 OCY Debris Area 53,917 5.0 9,985 12,980

OC‐03 OCY East 39,447 4.0 5,844 7,597

OC‐02 OCY West 175,080 3.0 19,453 25,289

NC‐01 OCY/NCY Drainage 47,483 2.0 3,517 4,572

OCY_DOWN Old Con Drainage (NBZ) 15,103 2.0 1,119 1,454

PD‐01 PD Hummock Area 48,658 5.0 9,011 11,714

PD‐04 PD Southwest 5,177 10.0 1,917 2,493

PU‐18 PDU 18 1,100 2.0 81 106

PU‐19 PDU 19 7,258 2.0 538 699

PU‐20 PDU 20 6,108 2.0 452 588

PU‐21 PDU 21 5,581 2.0 413 537

PU‐22 PDU 22 7,985 2.0 591 769

PU‐23 PDU 23 2,278 5.0 422 548

PU‐24 PDU 24 6,998 2.0 518 674

PD‐02 Pond Dredge Area 103,881 5.0 19,237 25,008

RM‐01 RMHF and Slope 152,516 2.0 11,298 14,687

RMHF_DOWN RMHF Drainage (NBZ) 13,601 2.0 1,007 1,310

RM‐03 RMHF Drainage 1 20,806 2.0 1,541 2,004

SR‐02 Road N of SRE 16,515 5.0 3,058 3,976

SR‐17 Road to B4724 3,364 2.0 249 324

U5‐17 S 5D North 1 12,430 1.0 460 598

L4‐04 S of B4040 3,053 1.5 170 220

SE‐05 S of G St 1 43,852 2.0 3,248 4,223

SE‐06 S of G St 1 1,799 1.0 67 87

5 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

L9‐12 S of Solar F 17,693 5.0 3,277 4,259

OC‐13 SA 3 Debris Area 58,037 4.0 8,598 11,177

SE‐11 SA 5A South 11 33,828 2.0 2,506 3,258

SE‐6 SA 5A South 6 67,280 2.0 4,984 6,479

SE‐9 SA 5B South 9 9,579 2.0 710 922

SA7_W4 SNAP Drainage 1 (Offsite) 2,113 2.0 157 203

HS‐29 SCTI 1 3,560 2.0 264 343

HS‐30 SCTI 2 1,716 2.0 127 165

HS‐31 SCTI 3 2,757 2.0 204 265

HS‐32 SCTI 4 1,222 2.0 91 118

HS‐33 SCTI 5 2,798 2.0 207 269

HS‐34 SCTI 6 12,643 2.0 937 1,218

HS‐35 SCTI 7 8,932 2.0 662 860

HS‐26 SCTL Area 21,977 3.0 2,442 3,174

HS‐02 SCTL North 38,957 4.0 5,771 7,503

SA_5A_S2 SE Drum Yard to ECL 4,743 2.0 351 457

SA_5A_S3 SE Drum Yard to ECL 10,173 2.0 754 980

L9‐09 SE of B4009 2,907 10.0 1,077 1,400

L1‐04 SE of B4025 1,954 5.0 362 470

MC‐02 SE of B4056 LF 1,954 1.0 72 94

L9‐17 SE of B4093 1,954 2.0 145 188

SETF‐1 SETF 1 8,490 2.0 629 818

SETF‐2 SETF 2 10,060 2.0 745 969

SETF‐3 SETF 3 7,103 2.0 526 684

SETF‐4 SETF 4 16,798 2.0 1,244 1,618

SETF‐5 SETF 5 35,939 2.0 2,662 3,461

SETF‐6 SETF 6 4,623 2.0 342 445

SN‐2 Silvernale Drainage NE 48,790 2.0 3,614 4,698

SN‐1 Silvernale Pond 79,333 3.0 8,815 11,459

ES‐05 Slope S of ESADA 354,785 5.0 65,701 85,411

SA7_W1 SNAP Drainage 1 (NBZ) 8,922 2.0 661 859



SA‐10 SNAP Excavation 41,436 10.0 15,347 19,951

HS‐14 Sout of B4026 187 5.0 35 45

PU‐09 South of B4005 1,954 6.0 434 564

HL‐03 South of B4020 30,572 2.0 2,265 2,944

HF‐04 South of B4133 3,068 3.0 341 443

U5‐26 South of B4353 26,187 2.5 2,425 3,152

U5‐25 South of G St 1,954 3.5 253 329

U5‐20 Southern 5D N 1 1,954 5.0 362 470

U5‐21 Southern 5D N 2 1,954 5.0 362 470

U5‐22 Southern 5D N 3 1,954 5.0 362 470

6 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

L8‐02 SPTF Northeast 13,641 1.5 758 985

L8‐03 SPTF Southeast 35,711 7.0 9,258 12,036

SR‐04 SRE B4143 30,592 15.0 16,995 22,094

SR‐08 SRE Channel 40,939 2.0 3,033 3,942

BZ‐16 SRE Drainage in NBZ 2,095 2.0 155 202

SRE_DOWN SRE Drainage (NBZ) 19,121 2.0 1,416 1,841

SR‐05 SRE East 82,922 8.0 24,569 31,940

SR‐13 SRE Entrance 3,765 1.0 139 181

SR‐03 SRE Hillslope 17,954 3.0 1,995 2,593

SR‐14 SRE Laundry 26,893 1.0 996 1,295

SR‐06 SRE Pond 19,511 6.0 4,336 5,637

SR‐01 SRE West 51,311 2.0 3,801 4,941

HF‐13 SW Flow fm SRE 33,245 1.0 1,231 1,601

B8‐01 SW of B4006 1,348 2.0 100 130

L9‐08 SW of B4009 1,954 2.0 145 188

SA‐13 SW of B4059 809 1.0 30 39

HS‐25 SW of B4356 1,447 10.0 536 697

OC‐05 SW of OCY 1 39,723 2.0 2,942 3,825

OC‐07 SW of OCY 2 15,311 5.0 2,835 3,686

OC‐08 SW of OCY 3 1,954 2.0 145 188

OC‐12 SW of OCY 4 1,196 1.0 44 58

FS‐02 W Debris Area 1 1,954 7.9 572 743

FS‐03 W Debris Area 2 1,487 5.0 275 358

L9‐01 W of B4100 1,011 2.0 75 97

HF‐06 W of B4133 Ops 9,503 2.0 704 915

ES‐06 W of ESADA 1,954 2.0 145 188

FS‐04 W of FSDF 28,927 1.5 1,607 2,089

L9‐11 W of Solar Concentrator Facility 26,275 3.0 2,919 3,795

PU‐16 West of B4005 1,954 2.0 145 188

L2‐01 West of B4011 21,494 5.0 3,980 5,175

U5‐11 West of B4073 3,011 2.0 223 290

HF‐05 West of B4133 9,297 10.0 3,443 4,476

HS‐23 West of B4356 4,795 2.0 355 462

HF‐01 West of B4686 15,190 1.0 563 731

HS‐05 West of HMSA 48 4.0 7 9

7 of 8



Area(ft2)

Average Depth(ft)

In Situ Volume(yd3)




Remediation Area1

OC‐09 West of OCY 1 8,089 3.0 899 1,168

OC‐10 West of OCY 2 2,649 3.5 343 446

OC‐11 West of OCY 3 1,954 1.0 72 94

Total 823,246 1,070,220

Total Acres 132.8Total Areas 306

Notes

1. Chemical Preliminary Remediation Areas were identified where chemical results exceeded screening levels using the following critera: i. Screening levels were based on the Look‐Up Table values issued by DTSC in June 2013 for 125 chemicals most frequently detected in Area IV, including all background constituents and additional chemicals of interest to DTSC. These values were based on chemical background threshold values (BTVs) and method reporting limits (MRLs), with background chemicals adjusted for analytical and decision error uncertainty. ii. TPH was screened against the LUT values using a ‘light’ (gasoline) and combined ‘heavy’ (kerosene, diesel, and oil) and ‘light’ (gasoline) fraction approach. Areas where TPH had not been previously analyzed in samples, but that were surrounded by numerous TPH exceedances were included in the PRA footprints even if the primary chemical class results were less than the Chemical LUT values.

2. Depth and volume estimates are based on data available as of August 2013 and are not based on final Chemical Look‐Up Table values. Thus, they are considered preliminary, working draft ROM estimates that will need refinement during remedial planning.

3. Radionuclide areas were identified where radiological results exceeded EPA Field Action Levels (FALs) based on the following: i. FALs represent EPAs Background Threshold Value (BTV) and Method Detection Concentrations (MDC) screening levels and do not include Method Uncertainty. ii. Radionuclides used in this evaluation were those identified by EPA as having activities equal to or exceeding the FAL and that resulted from historical operations, and included: Americium‐241, Curium‐243/244, Cesium‐137, Cobalt‐60, Europium‐152, Europium‐154, Nickel‐59, Plutonium‐238, Plutonium‐239/240, Tritium, and Strontium‐90. iii. NORM radionuclide exceedances were excluded from this evaluation.

8 of 8

Table 4Summary of Transportation for Area IV Soil Volumes Draft

Santa Susana Field LaboratoryDate Prepared September 5, 2013

Soil Cleanup Scenario1 Chemical (only)Co Located Chemical +

Radiological Radiological (only) Total

1) Chemical Clearly Contaminated Area Soil VolumesVolume of Soil Requiring Remediation 220,000 18,000 64,400 302,400Number of Truckloads 13,750 1,125 4,025 18,900Disposal Duration (years) 1.6 0.1 0.5 2.2

2) Chemical Look Up Table Preliminary Remediation Area Soil VolumesVolume of Soil Requiring Remediation 997,000 74,000 8,400 1,079,400Number of Truckloads 62,313 4,625 525 67,463Disposal Duration (years) 7.1 0.5 0.1 7.7

3) Upper Range Soil VolumesVolume of Soil Requiring Remediation 1,585,000 82,000 400 1,667,400Number of Truckloads 99,063 5,125 25 104,213Disposal Duration (years) 11.3 0.6 <0.1 11.9

Notes1. Criteria for identifying Chemical Clearly Contaminated Area, Chemical Look Up Table PRAs, Upper Range, and Radiological soil volumes is provided in the text of thisdocument.

2. Volume estimates are based on validated data available as of August 2013 and are considered preliminary, working draft ROM estimates that will need refinement oncevalidated data is available for all subareas and/or during remedial planning.

3. For truckload transport planning, an average volume of 16 cubic yards per truckload has been assumed based on previous soil removal actions at SSFL.

4. Truckloads estimated assuming 35 truckloads allowed per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. Does not include allowance for NASA or Boeing trucks leaving property.

Area IV AOC Cleanup Volumes_draft_090513 (2) 1 of 1

BZ-NW

BZ-NE

Subarea 8North

Subarea 5DSouth

Subarea 5A

Subarea 6

Subarea3

Subarea 5C

Subarea 5B

Subarea 7

Subarea 8South

Subarea 5DNorth

2000

1300

1900

1600

1900

1400

1900

1600

1900

1800

1900

1800

1900

1400

1800

1400 1800

2100

1600

1900

1900

1800

1800

2000

1900

1800

1400

1900

1400

2100

1300

1600

1800

1500

1800

1700

1800

2000

2100140

0

1900

1600

2000

1500

1900

1900

1900

1300

2000 1700

1600

14001700

1500

1800

1800

I1 inch = 580 feet

0 450 900Feet

Please Note: The original version of this figure includes colorized featuresand shading. A black and white copy of the figure should not be used becauseit may not accurately represent the information presented.

Area IV AOCChemical Clearly

Contaminated Areas

S A N T A S U S A N A F I E L D L A B O R A T O R Y FIGURE 1

DRAFT

Path: T:\projects\rock3\HSA\Working\CCAs\Area1V_CCAs_Fig1.mxd Date: 4/8/2013

Base Map LegendAdministrative Area BoundaryExisting BuildingRemoved BuildingDirt RoadA/C CurbingLeachfield

!( NPDES OutfallElevation Contour

Figure LegendSubarea BoundaryArea IV Clearly Contaminated Areas

BZ-NW

BZ-NE

Subarea 8North

Subarea 5DSouth

Subarea 5A

Subarea 6

Subarea3

Subarea 5C

Subarea 5B

Subarea 7

Subarea 8South

Subarea 5DNorth

2000

1400 1400

1600

1900

1400

1900

1600

1900

1900

1800

1900

1800

1800

1900

2000

1400

1800

2100

1900

1900

1800

1600

1800

2000

1900

1400

1800

1300

1900

2100

1400

1600

1800

1500

1800

1700

1800

2000

2100140

0

1600

1900

2000

1500

1900

1900

1900

1300

2000 1700

1600

1400

1700

1500

1800

1800

I1 inch = 580 feet

0 450 900Feet


Area IV AOCRadiological Soil Areas


DRAFT

Path: T:\projects\rock3\HSA\Working\CCAs\Area1V_RadSoil_Fig2.mxdDate: 4/8/2013

Note: Preliminary Radiological Areas shown on figureare for DOE planning purposes only. Areas were

identified are based on radionuclide sampling resultscompared against Background Threshold Valuesand laboratory method detection concentrations

achieved during the EPA characterization program, anddo not reflect final Radiological Look-up Table values.

Base Map LegendAdministrative Area BoundaryExisting BuildingRemoved BuildingDirt RoadA/C CurbingLeachfield

!( NPDES OutfallElevation Contour

Figure LegendSubarea BoundaryRadiological Soil Areas

BZ-NW

BZ-NE

Subarea 8North

Subarea 5DSouth

Subarea 5A

Subarea 6

Subarea3

Subarea 5C

Subarea 5B

Subarea 7

Subarea 8South

Subarea 5DNorth

1300

1800

16001600

1800

1900

1900

1400

1800

1800

2100

1600

1200

1300

1900

1900

1300

1800

1800

2000

1900

2100

2200

1800

1400

1400

1900

1600

1800

1800

2000

1400

1600

1800

1700

2000

1300

1700

1800

1800

1400

2000

2000

1900

2100

1300

1500

1200

1900

1400

1500

1500

1300

1400

1400

1900

1700200

0

1300

1400

1700

1900

1500

1600

1800

1800

I1 inch = 720 feet

0 720 1,440Feet


Area IV Chemical Look-Up Table

Preliminary Remediation Areas


DRAFT

Path: \\SD-004\gist\projects\rock3\HSA\Working\CCAs\Area1V_PrelimRemed_Fig3.mxdDate: 9/4/2013

Note: Soil areas identified based on validated dataavailable in April 2013 for DOE planning only;

evaluation based on preliminary Look-Up Table valuesdiscussed with DTSC and does not reflect final Lookup

Table values.

Base Map LegendAdministrative Area Boundary

Existing Building

Removed Building

Rock Outcrop

Dirt Road

Drainage

A/C Curbing

Leachfield

!( NPDES Outfall

Elevation Contour

Figure Legend

Subarea Boundary

DOE AOC Preliminary Remediation Areas

NASA Estimated Soil Cleanup Boundaries for Proposed Action

Note: Soil areas identified based on screening validated data available in August 2013 against chemical Look-Up Table values issued by DTSC in June 2013, and are for DOE planning purposes only.

BZ-NW

BZ-NE

Subarea 8North

Subarea 5DSouth

Subarea 5A

Subarea 6

Subarea3

Subarea 5C

Subarea 5B

Subarea 7

Subarea 8South

Subarea 5DNorth

1300

1600

1800

1800

1900

1900

1400

1800

2100

1600

1600

1200

2100

1900

1900

1800

1800

1300

1800

2000

1900

1300

2200

1800

1900

1400

1400

1600

1800

1800

2100

2000

1600

1400

1900

2000

1700

1300

1800

1700

1800

1400

2000

2000

1900

2100

1300

1500

1900

1200

1400

1500

1500

1300

1400

1400

1900

1700

2000

1300

1400

1900

1700

1500

1600

1800

1800

I1 inch = 720 feet

0 450 900Feet


Area IV Chemical Look-Up Table Upper Range Preliminary

Remediation Areas


DRAFT

Path: \\SD-004\gist\projects\rock3\HSA\Working\CCAs\Area1V_PrelimRemedUpper_Fig4.mxdDate: 9/4/2013

Note: Soil areas identified based on validated dataavailable in April 2013 for DOE planning only;

evaluation based on preliminary Look-Up Table valuesdiscussed with DTSC and does not reflect final Lookup

Table values.

Base Map LegendAdministrative Area Boundary

Existing Building

Removed Building

Rock Outcrop

Dirt Road

Drainage

A/C Curbing

Leachfield

!( NPDES Outfall

Elevation Contour

Figure Legend

Subarea Boundary

DOE AOC Preliminary Remediation Areas Upper Range

DOE AOC Preliminary Remediation Areas

NASA Estimated Soil Cleanup Boundaries for Proposed Action

Note: Soil areas identified based on screening validated data available in August 2013 against chemical Look-Up Table values issued by DTSC in June 2013, and are for DOE planning purposes only.

John Jones and Stephanie Jennings, US Department of Energy ... · Area IV ROM Soil Volume...

Documents

Transcript of John Jones and Stephanie Jennings, US Department of Energy ... · Area IV ROM Soil Volume...